"At least” will forever define the 2024 UN climate negotiations (COP29) in Baku, Azerbaijan.

At least USD300 billion in annual public finance by 2035 ended up being the new collective quantified goal on climate finance (NCQG). At least the USD1.3 trillion figure was still kept in the decision text, although as an aspirational target coming from both developed countries and the private sector.

Never mind that no emphasis on agriculture and food security was mentioned, considering that not compromising food production is part of the goals of the Paris Agreement. Never mind that actions addressing loss and damage (L&D) were essentially demoted in importance under this decision. Never mind that references to human rights and the rights of indigenous peoples were removed from the text. 

Never mind all of the above because at least there was a deal, right? No. This is simply put a bad deal, especially from the perspective of communities in the Asia-Pacific.

The term “needs-based” has picked up in usage in recent years, in recognition of both the growing needs of the Asia-Pacific to avoid the worst of the climate crisis and the need to ensure finance and support are delivered to those who need it the most. It has become a constant call by many Parties and observers alike on matters pertaining to climate finance, especially at COP29.

What is clear is that “at least” USD300 billion of public finance is just not enough; this figure is not enough to even meet the up-to-USD387 billion that developing countries need every year on adaptation alone.  

The climate COPs, like almost any agreement under the United Nations, are historically a process of compromise, where the outcomes often end up between the positions of developed nations and the demands of developing countries. This may have been enough at least for the first few years of this process, but a lot has changed since the UNFCCC was adopted in 1992.

In an era when developed nations are now feeling a fraction of the kind of extreme weather events that the most vulnerable communities have been experiencing for years, compromise can only be afforded by those with enough resources to protect their interests. 

What does get compromised are the present and future of indigenous peoples, women, youth, and other highly-vulnerable populations with every weak decision and delayed implementation. It is their needs and concerns that politicians claim they acknowledge and respond to, yet they keep making developing country negotiators play a game of “bad deal or no deal” every time the topic of finance is being discussed. 

The climate COP process must change if “needs-based” is not going to be just another buzzword in the negotiating dictionary. But this is an issue that could take a while to be properly addressed, starting on the road to COP30 in Belem, Brazil.

What’s next post-COP29?

There is still the reality that vulnerable countries and communities need to urgently respond to ongoing and potential impacts in these next few months, from threats to food security to avoiding irreversible L&D.  There are steps that different stakeholders can do to effectively translate “needs-based” financing to the sub-national and local levels.

One such step is to prioritize projects that provide co-benefits to achieving climate and development goals. Implementing solutions that can address needs related to any combination of adaptation, mitigation, food, water, and energy security, livelihoods, environmental and human rights protection, and economic development, to name a few, should be identified and given strong support by decision-makers. 

This step must be coupled with sufficient capacity for tracking climate-aligned budget allocations and expenditures for a more accurate accounting of progress. Governments of developing countries, especially in the Asia-Pacific, must strengthen coordination with civil society and other non-government groups on data collection and management relevant to tracking climate actions.   

Another recommendation is for governments to stop subsidizing activities that result in ecological destruction. Doing this would unlock more domestic public finance needed for supporting programs aligned with climate and development goals, while avoiding dependence on the slow process of the climate COPs.

Doing so would also establish a culture of rewarding long-term commitments instead of short-term gains that are partially driven by political agendas at the national and local levels. Giving incentives to businesses to entice them to participate in adaptation and mitigation projects is no longer enough; such projects must incorporate guaranteed social and environmental safeguards for communities and sectors to be affected by these endeavors.   

Yet another measure is for governments to improve the accessibility of available finance to stakeholders for whom such support is intended. For example, there have been too many cases in the Asia-Pacific of funds for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction that are not fully used by sub-national actors due to a lack of capacity to access or lack of awareness that such modes of support even exist.

While non-government stakeholders can help bridge this gap, it is ultimately the responsibility of national governments as duty-bearers to establish ways to improve the reach and accessibility of these financing channels to priority sectors and groups. 

There are so many initiatives on the ground level, from coastal communities to those in mountainous areas, from youth-led initiatives in just transition to the promotion of “zero waste” stores, that can be scaled up or replicated if national governments are aware and allot enough resources and manpower to be familiar that they are even happening. 

All of these steps can give countries in the Asia-Pacific more room for more effectively implementing their climate strategies. It is not an ideal situation, but considering the failures of the recent climate COPs, maximizing available resources and prioritizing interventions that are truly “needs-based” has to be undertaken by decision-makers to address the climate crisis.

Look at the bright side: “at least” the negotiators finally get to rest after going overtime in Baku. How disappointed would we be this time next year?